Jump to content

Scanning: Negs are definitely better


Rolo

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A long standing question Slides v negs.

 

For those interested in scanning, I'd encourage you to listen to:

 

Inside Analogue Digital Radio podcast with Kodak Photo engineer Ron Mowrey, 04/04/09.

 

His point of discussion is Pos-Pos versus Neg-Pos and leaves you in no doubt that the negative is the best starting position for scanning.

 

Simply, he explains that slides had to be provided so the Editor's could see a final image on a light box. Internegs were then used for the production process.

 

Without the need for the light box, there's no advantage for the slide. [unless you need a specific look, or if you have a need to project the image, I presume]

 

He also explains what is being done to remove emulsion properties that have made scanning promote a look of grain.

 

At the risk of selling all your digital gear, well worth a listen IMO. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Define "better"

 

Not for me, they're not. I have always found it much easier to scan a slide, since you have a positive original with which to compare the scan.

 

Getting rid of the orange cast from the negative always leaves the image needing a huge mount of PP in my experience - and then there's the grain to contend with. With a slide, I can scan it and that's it. The only advantage that I can see from a negative, is the dynamic range, but since I don't venture down the Velvia Underground route, I find that my Astia is fine for what I want to do with it.

 

So, I have virtually given up on colour negative film for this very reason. Life is too short - and so am I. And I have never sold any images any way, so I just have to please myself. Which is good. :)

 

I might pop into the podcast though - that's a good series every now and again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Define "better"

 

Not for me, they're not. I have always found it much easier to scan a slide, since you have a positive original with which to compare the scan.

 

I like a 'closed 'mind'.

 

Maybe you'll learn something by listening to the podcast. Seems unlikely though.

 

Save your time and just keep doing what you've always done. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My mind is wide open, but I have tried scanning colour negatives (of all sorts of brands and types) and I find that I get better results by scanning slides.

 

Just my experience, that's all. Clearly not worth much, I know. :)

 

(I have put the podcast onto the iPod so that I can listen to it in the car tomorrow. Provided I am allowed to... ;) )

Edited by andybarton
Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, my experience over many years, mainly shooting available light of many and varied kinds, especially stage stuff, The ONLY possibility to acquire a usable image was ALWAYS negative film, for all the obvious reasons. Occasionally, editors and agency dudes would demand transparencies. Because I was shooting Hasselblad mainly, I was able to shoot both. The useable images always came from the negs. ..... and not because of 'operator error' with the trannies. ;)

 

However, when shooting under controlled studio conditions, the transparency film took over as superior providing I had full control over the lighting, which is the point of a studio.

 

When it comes to scanning, transparencies are 'easier', but lose on the DR. Negs will give more image information but will require extra work and skill from the operator. Life is just one big "Catch 22".

 

I have been enjoying the fantastic benefits of the M8's digi files for rapid turnaround to hardcopy. However, I am rejuvenation my Nikon 8000 scanner so I can return to using my old 'Blad outfit. Need to brush up on those scanning skills again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A link to the podcast would be handy.:)

 

Scanning is not the only reason for shooting slides. Turning them into digital files is not the be all and end all. All color films have a unique color signature, so it boils down to personal preferences. I find slide films are nicely saturated and super sharp, and they scan well. I also still like seeing slides projected onto a screen; nothing compares.

 

There is also considerable uncertainty how long color negatives with their orange layer will last compared with slides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slides are my first personal choice, Nagetives was only used to please my dear wife

As she liked to send and file the prints of our children and families etc,etc.

But I also found it easier to scan slides.

 

I no longer use Print ( Negative) film since I got the Canon G9,as we use that for our family photos however on important occasions I also take them on slides as it's my upmost priority to shoot slides with my Leicas all the time as I love the projected slide that emanate from Leica lenses compared to

A computer monitor.

 

Ken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also a blanket generalization to say either slides or prints are better. Which slide or print film? One of the best slide films for scanning in my experience is Fuji Astia 100F. It is a superb film with very natural colors and virtually no grain, and captures subtle gradations of highlights and shadow detail. I have certainly been pleased with the published pictures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, doesn't help that I spelt Analog in the English way.

 

Easy access to it is thru iTunes, but it's also available through the Inside Analog Photo Radio website if you search for Ron Mowrey. It's the fourth on the list Pos-Pos vs Neg-Pos

 

Please understand, I have no desire to convert anybody from the preferred methods of working, just to direct anyone who's interested in listening to an world expert on the subject.

 

Just to be clear, he is referring to conversion to digital via scanning. He acknowledges that first generation viewing of a slide via a projection system is a completely different ball game. If you like to project images there's probably nothing to match Superslides. :)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also a blanket generalization to say either slides or prints are better. Which slide or print film? One of the best slide films for scanning in my experience is Fuji Astia 100F. It is a superb film with very natural colors and virtually no grain, and captures subtle gradations of highlights and shadow detail. I have certainly been pleased with the published pictures.

Hi David

I already know Velvia or Provia but i don't know Astia

Is it better ?

otherwise I agree with your opinion on the negative

Henry

Edited by Doc Henry
Link to post
Share on other sites

A link to the podcast would be handy.:)

 

Snipped

 

There is also considerable uncertainty how long color negatives with their orange layer will last compared with slides.

 

I think there is uncertainty surrounding ALL colour film unfortunately. Storage is a large factor in its longevity of course. Recently, I had occasion to scan several colour negs I shot about 30+ years ago, when colour emulsions were a bit dodgy, in my opinion. I was blown away by the quality I could get straight off the scan. It definitely exceeded the large original colour prints I was replacing. I am in no doubt about the quality of those, and other original negs, so far. I have also had colour transparencies die quite early. I think that is a reflection of the processing. One of the reasons I undertook to process ALL my own film, colour and B&W.

 

I am confident all my films will outlast me in good condition. I hope the ultimate benefactor(s) appreciate it all when I am gone. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

An oil mounted neg vs pos on a tango drum scanner are nearly indistinguishable at ~ 2,000 ppi. Crank the resolution to 4,000ppi and you will find that the grain from the neg will start to become more apparent. I'm talking very fine grained pos and neg films here. Fortunately, neat image or noise ninja will help to clean up the noise. The advantage of neg film is the extended dynamic range, the advantage to chrome film is the ability to directly project it, color match it (much easier to generate icc targets for chrome film...they do not exist for neg), typically a higher level of saturation, lower noise (Astia RMS is 7), and better contrast. Having said that, many of the advantages of chrome film can be emulated on scanned neg film in post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An oil mounted neg vs pos on a tango drum scanner are nearly indistinguishable at ~ 2,000 ppi. Crank the resolution to 4,000ppi and you will find that the grain from the neg will start to become more apparent. I'm talking very fine grained pos and neg films here. Fortunately, neat image or noise ninja will help to clean up the noise. The advantage of neg film is the extended dynamic range, the advantage to chrome film is the ability to directly project it, color match it (much easier to generate icc targets for chrome film...they do not exist for neg), typically a higher level of saturation, lower noise (Astia RMS is 7), and better contrast. Having said that, many of the advantages of chrome film can be emulated on scanned neg film in post.

 

Have you got any examples, before and after of the noise killers?

What are the advantages of chrome films that can be emulated, and do you have any examples to hand?

 

One of my biggest bugs is how noise is displayed across different editing programs, Corel, Photoshop etc. Sometimes it makes editing difficult, because you cant actually see the results of your manipulation through the "graininess" (if I can use the word) of the image displayed on screen and which doesnt always reflect what is printed, and the way programs display noise across different zoomed displays. Corel tends to retain noise even zoomed out.

 

There are so many ways to fleece a dog, it is worth keeping your eyes open I reckon.

 

Also still be interesting to see a crop from one of Rolos maximum resolution 35mm scans, against a crop of 100% view of the optimum scan.

Edited by rob_x2004
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well David, Rolo, thats dragged me kicking and screaming into the twentieth century. Try as I might I couldnt get it till I stumbled into the 'store' first. I only knowed bout vem iTunes fings:D. Fair bit of stuff in the podcasts, radio, video, thanks.

Edited by rob_x2004
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rolo....Thanks for the heads up. I'm going to check out some of the podcasts from that site tonight

 

I'm a fan of Fuji Astia, just like Andy Barton, and prefer the look. But, will concede that the newer color negative films seem to be getting the edge over transparencies in many ways.

 

Some of us might have a cultural bias against color negative film. It was only 10 years ago that transparencies were the currency of professionals and color negative film was reserved for housewives & wedding photographers. It's hard for me to look at a color negative images and not immediately associate it with those shooters. Certainly, the rise of digital has changed this cultural stereotype for a lot of people...but I'm still a victim of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi David

I already know Velvia or Provia but i don't know Astia

Is it better ?

otherwise I agree with your opinion on the negative

Henry

 

Worth a try, Henry. The grain is almost invisible! Really. It is less saturated than those other two, but you can always boost the colors after scanning.

 

Interesting re the longevity of films. Depends a lot on which film. Kodachromes last for decades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...